Does the Bank have any Reg E liability when the cusotmer uses their Visa branded debit card to make a purchase and then it ends up being a scam? The transaction was initiated by the customer so Reg E won't cover them but does the consumer have any recourse since our cards are Visa branded?

Also, is there a difference in Bank and consumer liability when the cusotmer states they just noticed transactions from 3 years ago on their statement versus they state they noticed the unauthorized transactions 3 years ago and never came in to stop them? Would the Bank's liability be the same regardless since we have to go by when they notify us? So Bank's liability would be first unauthorized transaction on the periodic statement plus 60 days in both scenarios?

Thank you!

There are no Reg E protections here, but your Visa Agreement may require you to pursue a possible claim. The good news is you won't have to follow Reg E's timing or provide provisional credit for the dispute.



Consumer negligence, unfortunately, does not increase consumer liability. You're correct, the 1st statement date on which the transactions appear, plus 60. If this is an actual situation, it would be a REALLY good time to exercise your right to refuse another card - and/or maybe even close the account altogether.

Visa rules may apply depending on the circumstances due to misrepresentation or counterfeit merchandise, or maybe services not rendered. It may be that the bank has an obligation to help, but not repay. If these are the 3 year old transactions, I think the customer is out of luck.

Would the following statement from Reg E include scams? I've received conflicting guidance that it would. I'd appreciate any feedback how others handle claims when a customer gets scammed. I had interpreted the below to mean the access device had to have been stolen but it does state fraud. So if a customer willingly gives their card info but it was obtained byt he other person through fraud or robbery then it would be covered by Reg E. I'd appreciate any discussion on this.

Access device obtained through robbery or fraud. An unauthorized EFT includes a transfer initiated by a person who obtained the access device from the consumer through fraud or robbery.

It is going to be fact dependent - if the fraudster said give me $500 for whatever reason and the customer agreed and they charged them $500, then it was authorized. If they then ran a bunch of transactions through the account not related to the $500 authorization, then those would not be authorized.